in reply to Concurrent access to temporary and persistant storage

If you didn't need persistence, I would point you at IPC:MM, which has unbeatable performance. Since you do need persistence, the best choice is a dbm-based one. You can use either BerkleyDB, which has its own locking system, or MLDBM::Sync which works with all the popular dbms. These are faster than SQLite.

Of course you can also use MySQL for this and get performance that's good enough for most things.

  • Comment on Re: Concurrent access to temporary and persistant storage

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Concurrent access to temporary and persistant storage
by Anonymous Monk on Jun 03, 2003 at 22:21 UTC
    If you didn't need persistence, I would point you at IPC:MM, which has unbeatable performance.
    And that would disregard the portability requirement.
    ...These are faster than SQLite.
    But neither speaks SQL. You should only consider SQLite if your aim is to have a RDMS.
[reply]
      How do you know IPC::MM isn't portable? Ralf Engelschall's mm (which it is based on) was developed to provide portable shared memory for apache.

      hacker is the one who brought up SQLite. I'm just telling him how it performs relative to these other choices.

[reply]
        It will not compile/run on win32 -- not portable
[reply]

In Section Meditations